No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Do you think that the most ethical societies in human history have been ones that believed in a hell?

Why is it that representation of atheists in prison populations is disproportionate by an order of magnitude? It's because their moral code is based upon ethics, not fear of punishment from some distant, invisible, omnipotent sociopath.

Belief in god is a yoke upon the mind of man.

But you never answered my question about whether or not lies that have destructive effects on those who believe them (or, as in this case, encourage destructive behavior) should be allowed to pass without challenge because we see them as irrelevant or unproveable.

“We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.”

Ranger Genius wrote:No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Do you think that the most ethical societies in human history have been ones that believed in a hell?

Why is it that representation of atheists in prison populations is disproportionate by an order of magnitude? It's because their moral code is based upon ethics, not fear of punishment from some distant, invisible, omnipotent sociopath.

Belief in god is a yoke upon the mind of man.

But you never answered my question about whether or not lies that have destructive effects on those who believe them (or, as in this case, encourage destructive behavior) should be allowed to pass without challenge because we see them as irrelevant or unproveable.

Of course they should be challenged. But not every Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever is spreading or supporting dangerous lies. I don't understand how you think all belief is destructive.

Hugh, I'm not an agnostic. Regardless of how much you would like to think it. My BELIEF SYSTEM (please look up belief, please, pretty please) is such that god doesn't exist. Agnosticism is kind of pointless really, not being a priest- a belief in god doesn't affect me much at all. But I'm not going to stand on a soapbox and scream that I refuse to think about whether there is a god or not. I thought about it, came to a conclusion that fits me, and was done with it. You've already come to some conclusion- but then wrapped a blindfold around your eyes and are now trying to act like it didn't happen.

I don't believe just that the universe is eternal, I believe it is all encompassing. Everything in it exists for its own merit and purpose- not some other being's. It was not CREATED it simply EXISTS.

Believing in the existance of the universe does not require leaps of faith. Belief in a god that created the universe does. I can prove individually that things exist in the universe. The question of god is as pointless as a belief in anything else imaginary.

RG summed up very nicely why the 'proofs' of god can be disproven easily, and why the same techniques will not work for an 'unproof of god' (or anything for that matter). I suggest you buy a book on logical philosophy as you are woefully lacking in this field. Even worse, you refuse to even admit to be lacking or seek to determine how logic works. You 'know' things and everyone else is wrong.

There really isn't any more point in trying to point out the obvious. You just won't get it. Have fun having the last word, I'm done here. I should have quit 2 or 3 postings ago.

Rob the Wop wrote:Hugh, I'm not an agnostic. Regardless of how much you would like to think it. My BELIEF SYSTEM (please look up belief, please, pretty please) is such that god doesn't exist. Agnosticism is kind of pointless really, not being a priest- a belief in god doesn't affect me much at all. But I'm not going to stand on a soapbox and scream that I refuse to think about whether there is a god or not. I thought about it, came to a conclusion that fits me, and was done with it. You've already come to some conclusion- but then wrapped a blindfold around your eyes and are now trying to act like it didn't happen.

I don't believe just that the universe is eternal, I believe it is all encompassing. Everything in it exists for its own merit and purpose- not some other being's. It was not CREATED it simply EXISTS.

Believing in the existance of the universe does not require leaps of faith. Belief in a god that created the universe does. I can prove individually that things exist in the universe. The question of god is as pointless as a belief in anything else imaginary.

RG summed up very nicely why the 'proofs' of god can be disproven easily, and why the same techniques will not work for an 'unproof of god' (or anything for that matter). I suggest you buy a book on logical philosophy as you are woefully lacking in this field. Even worse, you refuse to even admit to be lacking or seek to determine how logic works. You 'know' things and everyone else is wrong.

There really isn't any more point in trying to point out the obvious. You just won't get it. Have fun having the last word, I'm done here. I should have quit 2 or 3 postings ago.

So you're saying that it's impossible for someone to have no opinion? You're saying that I couldn't have considered the question and then decided that it's not relevant to me?

HughMungus wrote:Why would someone try to convince themselves or others that there is no god. What's the point of that?

For heaven's sakes, HM - get the hell out of Biblebeltistan!

The reason that most of us don't feel compelled to believe in any "god" is because we haven't spent our lives sequestered in an oppresive state where if you don't believe in "god", you'd better start praying.

The very fact that your mind yearns to learn why the rest of us are free from such submission is evidence enough that you need to expose yourself to other realities.

In the words of the old monk in the classic TV series 'Kung Fu':
"Time for you to leave."

*i* am an 'atheist' because i choose not to call what i believe in 'god'.

because historically the church (and 'god') have existed to control people.

because the mean scary 'god' i was introduced to as a child does absolutely no good for me, my life, or my psyche.

because i have since discovered inumerable others things that give me hope, bliss, energy, understanding, contentment, and insight as to why we are here.

to list a few:

sunsets
large gatherings where everyone is focused on the same beautiful experience
sex
wet trees
my children
friends (and strangers) who give up a chunk of their life to help mine in some way
the feeling i get when i do the same
giving birth
moments where i have no doubts whatsoever about the choices i have made
the answers that come when i ask the universe and my own wise spirit for guidance

no fear, no guilt, no judegement. still absolute respect and responsibility for my actions, energies, and experience.

HughMungus wrote:Why would someone try to convince themselves or others that there is no god. What's the point of that?

For heaven's sakes, HM - get the hell out of Biblebeltistan!

The reason that most of us don't feel compelled to believe in any "god" is because we haven't spent our lives sequestered in an oppresive state where if you don't believe in "god", you'd better start praying.

The very fact that your mind yearns to learn why the rest of us are free from such submission is evidence enough that you need to expose yourself to other realities.

In the words of the old monk in the classic TV series 'Kung Fu': "Time for you to leave."

Good luck and athiest hugs,m-files:)

Why do people think I'm saying that you SHOULD believe in god? Where are people getting that? All I was looking for was reasons why someone would be an atheist instead of being agnostic because belief and non-belief both seem to rely on the same thing -- a belief in something that can't be proven either way (and no, "proving" something via logic and wordplay doesn't count).

HughMungus wrote:All I was looking for was reasons why someone would be an atheist instead of being agnostic because belief and non-belief both seem to rely on the same thing -- a belief in something that can't be proven either way

Do you go to Christians, Muslims and Jews and ask them why they're not agnostic instead of Christian, Muslim or Jewish?

Still, you bring up a good point. Scientific principles dictate that a negative cannot be proven. Example: Everybody knows that birds fly south in the winter. But it can never be proven that birds do not fly north in the winter. Perhaps that breed has not been discovered yet, or whatever.

Therefore, atheitism is the only belief system which must accept its own inherit scientific fault. Example: Theoretically, it may someday be possible for Christians, Muslims, Jews, whomever, to prove that there is a god.

However, it will never be scientifically possible for atheists to prove that there is no god.

For this reason, atheitsim is the most humble and most respectful belief system that has ever existed. I'm proud to call myself one.

HughMungus wrote:All I was looking for was reasons why someone would be an atheist instead of being agnostic because belief and non-belief both seem to rely on the same thing -- a belief in something that can't be proven either way

Do you go to Christians, Muslims and Jews and ask them why they're not agnostic instead of Christian, Muslim or Jewish?

Still, you bring up a good point. Scientific principles dictate that a negative cannot be proven. Example: Everybody knows that birds fly south in the winter. But it can never be proven that birds do not fly north in the winter. Perhaps that breed has not been discovered yet, or whatever.

Therefore, atheitism is the only belief system which must accept its own inherit scientific fault. Example: Theoretically, it may someday be possible for Christians, Muslims, Jews, whomever, to prove that there is a god.

However, it will never be scientifically possible for atheists to prove that there is no god.

For this reason, atheitsim is the most humble and most respectful belief system that has ever existed. I'm proud to call myself one.

Atheist hugs,m-files:)

Because?

I'd think agnosticism was the most humble because you're not making a declaration of what you believe to be true at all (whereas theists and atheists are).

I've always seen agnosticism as sort of a coward's way out; a cop out. Being afraid to take a position. Mostly I think they're closet theists who are mad at their god (or gods), or closet atheists who are too afraid to admit it to themselves (and others). If you don't believe in god, you don't believe in god. It's just spineless pandering to say "I don't believe in god, but I don't disbelieve him, either!" And contradictory, to boot.

“We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.”

HughMungus wrote:I'd think agnosticism was the most humble because you're not making a declaration of what you believe to be true at all (whereas theists and atheists are).

Which is more humble:

To admit that what you believe may in fact not be true?

Or to simply say that you have no convictions, and therefore cannot be wrong either way?

Atheist hugs,m-files:)

You're confusing the reason someone would decide to not decide. I've decided to not decide because it's irrelevant to my life, not because I don't want to be wrong. I think it takes more courage to say "I don't know," than to appear to know something either way.

For example, is this true or false: HughMungus owns only one television. How much time would you spend trying to figure this out when it its relevance to your live is near zero?

Ranger Genius wrote:I've always seen agnosticism as sort of a coward's way out; a cop out. Being afraid to take a position. Mostly I think they're closet theists who are mad at their god (or gods), or closet atheists who are too afraid to admit it to themselves (and others). If you don't believe in god, you don't believe in god. It's just spineless pandering to say "I don't believe in god, but I don't disbelieve him, either!" And contradictory, to boot.

I don't think I've ever said either one of those things (here in this thread or in my life). I say, "I don't care. Other things are more important to consider."

Oh, and to answer the topic question:
I deny the existence of god based on the lack of empirical evidence for his/her/its existence.

And in response to the argument about proving god doesn't exist: Well, thats just bad logic. Granted, it can not be done. Nor can you prove that there are no green swans. But the inverse is just as illogical. The negative proof, eg. "there is no proof that this thing does not exist, therefore it does exist" is no proof at all.

Ranger Genius wrote:When was the last time someone used a multiverse theory as an excuse to blow up an abortion clinic?

You're confusing organized religion with religious belief. Any system of belief can be twisted into something bad or blamed for something bad. Hitler came to power in a representative democracy. Does that mean we shouldn't have any faith in representative democracy anymore?

bringer wrote:Oh, and to answer the topic question:I deny the existence of god based on the lack of empirical evidence for his/her/its existence.

And in response to the argument about proving god doesn't exist: Well, thats just bad logic. Granted, it can not be done. Nor can you prove that there are no green swans. But the inverse is just as illogical. The negative proof, eg. "there is no proof that this thing does not exist, therefore it does exist" is no proof at all.

In other words, there is no proof either way.

OK, here's a great example of why I posed the original question.

First you say, "I'm an atheist because there is no empirical evidence that god exists."

Then you say, "There is no proof either way."

If you believe that there's no proof either way, wouldn't that make you agnostic?

If there's no proof either way, how did you end-up not believing instead of believing?

HughMungus wrote:I've decided to not decide because it's irrelevant to my life, not because I don't want to be wrong. I think it takes more courage to say "I don't know," than to appear to know something either way.

You spend so much time preaching what you pretend is so irrelevant in your life that you didn't read my post properly. I asked which was more humble, not which "takes more courage".

Admitting up front that what you believe may indeed be wrong is obviously not "pretending to know something either way". And it takes far, far more courage than a shallow "I don't know" blow off.